On March 23, 2018, shortly after the passage of the UO Senate resolution (March 14), the UO Riverfront Restoration and Education Group sent the attached letter to you and other administrators providing a detailed analysis of the historical record with supporting evidence indicating that:
1) More than one CUP was anticipated for developments within the North Campus area zoned S-RP and that this is allowable under the City ordinance;
2) Partitioning the North Campus into multiple CUPs is more likely to achieve the desired outcomes.
On May 11, in his response to the Senate Resolution, President Schill quoted Denny Braud, Director of Planning and Development for the City of Eugene that "'it is more likely than not' that the land-use board and courts would require a single master plan for the Research Park area."
Mr. Braud's quote from March 14, however, was made before the UO Riverfront Restoration and Education Group's March 23 letter and analysis.
President Schill further states in his letter (page 5) that:
After receiving this information from Mr. Braud and after additional conversations between UO General Counsel Kevin Reed and the City Attorney's Office that echoed the sentiments expressed by Mr. Braud, we engaged expert land use attorneys within Eugene to seek additional guidance on this topic. After significant review, it is clear that there is a high likelihood that more than one master plan will not be allowed, which creates too much risk for the university.
It's unclear from President Schill's letter whether or not this consultation took place before or after we submitted our analysis (or if he even saw our analysis). Because the letter provides no basis for this opinion Paul and I (as discussed in our conversation last week) request copies of documents related to the opinion that more than one master plan will likely not be allowed for the North Campus area.
Until we've seen further evidence that supports Presiden't Schill's position, we maintain that it's permissible and in the University's best interest to pursue one of the three options we described on pages 12-13 of our letter. Making relatively minor modifications to the CUP application could be more expeditious than the delays and cost involved with defending the current application.